Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward, Neil J. Wilkof, and Merpel. Nicola Searle is currently on sabbatical. Read, post comments and participate! E-mail the Kats here

The team is joined by GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy

Friday, 25 April 2008

I received the following email from someone calling themselves "Kappa". The subject matter caused my whiskers to twitch, and I thought I would pass it on to my readers:

"Dear Tufty

I believe that you have frequently been known to get your teeth and claws into applicants and Examiners at the UKIPO when your sharp eyes observe some pretentious IP claim that deserves to be torn to shreds [Tufty comment: see here for an example]... With your perception you might have thought that Section 3 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 was going fine when Application 2444542 for the VILLAGE VET for veterinary services was properly refused earlier this year, and perhaps safeguarding the general interests of animal doctors around the country might be closer to your heart, but you should still be shocked, I feel, to learn that application 2447125 for MyGP for, yes, medical services (probably merely for humans, but who can be sure), has been accepted and published for opposition. Now, not being young in years myself, I regret to say that I do have to make regular visits to myGP (did you notice the missing space). That is to say the doctor in the local village where I am registered. MyGP is a friendly chap and offers a range of medical services, including a dentist on the premises, as may frequently be found in GP practices across the country. When I forget the number of myGP, I expect I may have to call 118 118 and ask them for myGP's telephone number. I won't be wanting ADP Dental Company in Reigate, I can assure you. And I can't imagine anyone else outside Reigate would either.

"GP" is an absolutely commonplace abbreviation for "General Practitioner" or shorthand for everyone's local medical doctor, or provider of medical services. I know that grammatic perfectionists will point out that MyGP lacks the space which should appear in the written word, but does anyone say "My-space-GP"? and anyway, wouldn't that risk another infringement of Myspace these days? Personally, I cannot understand how the Hearing Officer was ever persuaded to allow this application - did he get a free MRI scan - I think his head needs scanning for sure - it seems to me this application offends every line of Sections 3(1)(a)(b)(c) and (d) and there is no indication of any argument of distinctiveness having been acquired though use - surely this is one example, where it just never ever could acquire distinctiveness or recognition as a trade mark? No ordinary person is ever going to take a reference to "MyGP" as being anything else than a reference to the person's local doctor. Please would you get your claws out and scratch an appropriate part of the UKIPO anatomy!

In case you think your village vet is safe, you might also check out UK 2467643 - we know that nature may be red in tooth and claw, but having the same descriptive mark in red or black doesn't seem to justify registration to me..."

Perhaps an astute reader would be so kind as to suggest: i) how this mark could have survived getting through the examination procedure (and a hearing, according to the register) on absolute grounds, ii) why the mark should not now be opposed, iii) whether it has anything to do with this website, and iv) if anyone plans to do anything about it. Any suggestions or comments are very welcome.

5 comments:

Anonymous
said...

We don't have a problem with "My-" marks here in Australia. While I might refer to 'my GP', think about it - trade marks are supposed to indicate the trade origin of goods and/or services. "My-" marks work just fine for that. "YOUR-" marks, on the other hand ...

In response to the VILLAGE VET TMs - one is plain word. The other has a device element. You cannot compare the acceptance of one with the rejection of the other (unless you think a dog with red spots is a 'usual' representation).

If your correspondent was going to be thick enough to ring up and ask for the number for "myGP", he deserves what he gets. I'd be asking directory assistance for the number corresponding to the name and location of my doctor. But that's just me, I guess.

IPKat Policies

This page summarises the IPKat policies on guest submissions and comments. If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation. To learn more about our guest submissions, comments and complaints policy and the procedure for lodging a complaint click here.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

Just click the magic box below and get this page translated into a bewildering selection of languages!